Layman

Yes, I have made that claim.

And I think it is especially appropriate when you attack a piece, especially with such vitriolic language as you employ against Dr. Pearson by using phrases such as "poorly-researched conjectures" and "It never occurs to him to investigate what else such scribes did" and "Pearson's reasoning is entirely shot through." You also impute to him the motive of attempting to "to defend Luke." A motive not expressed anywhere in his article. And from what I have learned of Dr. Pearson, he is just as frightened by those seeking to "prove" the Bible as those obsessed with "disproving it."

Additionally, you misconstrue his piece and ignore examples and arguments made by Dr. Pearson. For examples:

First, Pearson traps himself in a false dichotomy: arguing that Luke can only be seen as "historically accurate" if Quirinius governed Syria in the reign of Herod or the census took place before Quirinius, he then argues for the latter. But he ignores the easiest solution of all: that Luke is right and Matthew is wrong. But he ignores the easiest solution of all: that Luke is right and Matthew is wrong.

Except that Dr. Pearson nowhere discusses having to reconcile Matthew and Luke. It's not even on the radar screen. Instead, like the vast majority of scholars, he simply accepts that Luke makes it clear that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great.

Pearson claims that "Josephus records a great deal of indirect evidence that a careful and detailed system of census and taxation existed under Herod" (p. 265). But he then presents evidence only of the latter: a careful and detailed system of taxation. He assumes that taxation entailed a census (p. 266). But it did not.

There is much more going on here than Dr. Pearson simply assuming that all taxation requires a census. He also makes it clear his theory rests, in part, on the very real fact that King Herod mimicked Rome in many ways and was expected -- as a client-king -- to "Romanize" his territory. This is a point which you completely ignore:

I have not been able to determine whether -- as you assume -- Dr. Pearsons' source on taxation and census taking has been "refuted," but it is obvious that Dr. Pearsons' argument is more broad than you represent.

It never occurs to him to investigate what else such scribes did: for in fact, government-employed scribes kept property records and records of contracts, records pertaining to market taxes and tarriffs, and so on, and thus had plenty to do and plenty reason to be in every town. Their existence does not in the least entail a census (indeed, one wonders just what Pearson thinks they did in the years of down-time between censuses).

Your entire 'refutation" of this point is nothing more than your own opinion. You offer not one single citation to counter it. They may exist, but they are not here. On the other hand, Dr. Pearson's article cites to many ancient documents showing that the term (translated "village scribes" used by Josephus was closely linked to census-taking duties. He also cites to another academic source which -- referring to one of these ancient documents -- notes that these scribes were "specially concerned with the revision of the census lists."

Dr. Pearson also notes that Josephus does not use this word anywhere else in his account. So it seems that we have an office in Judea closely associated in other ancient documents with census taking. Perhaps even 'especially' so.

Here is what Dr. Pearson has to say about this issue:

If you had more support for this I would like to see it. Perhaps Josephan references to these same "village scribes" doing all these other tasks you speak of?

Pearson tried to dismiss the obvious objection, that Luke refers the census to an Augustan decree and the governorship of Quirinius, by insisting that ancient people dated events by reference to the most memorable event near it, and thus Luke meant to refer to an earlier census by reference to a later 'more memorable' one

Well, Dr. Pearson actually includes an entire section on the proper grammatical interpretation of Luke 2:2 (which you completely ignore). And, he points out that the census under Quirinius had special significance because it was a turning point in Jewish History (which you ignore). And he is right -- as you know -- because this was the sign and time when Rome undertook direct control over Judaea and caused a rebellion.

You, however, only focus on one aspect of his argument. Indeed, I was surprised that you completely ignored Dr. Pearson's grammatical arguments. Especially since he respond directly to some points you raise in your discussion on that issue.

Here all evidence contradicts Pearson, and it is not surprising that he does not give a single analogous example to demonstrate his generalization....Thus Pearson's reasoning is entirely shot through.

This is blatantly erroneous. Dr. Pearson does give a very analogous example. Indeed, one that was written by the same author. As he notes:

So Dr. Pearson not only offers us an example of the use of a chronological signpost, he provides one used by the author of the passage under discussion! Indeed, if you read Acts 5:33-39, we see that Gamaliel is giving a short history lesson ("before these days Theudas arose.... After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census.... So in the present case...") of Jewish uprisings and makes no reference at all to "regnal years of important persons." Accordingly, far from being "shot through," Dr. Pearson offers an excellent example that proves his point. A point which he probably thought was so obvious (and already supported) that additional examples were not required. Yet you completley ignored it.

One email from you could have clarified what research was done, what his goal was, and whether he investigated "what else such scribes did." It might also have revealed to you how often you misrepresent his arguments and conclusions. Besides, claiming that Dr. Pearson had to offer all the evidence or argument there was to offer in his article is somewhat disingenuous. You should know as well as anyone that there are space limitations, editors, and publishers to deal with in getting one's work published. And although my experience was not on historical studies, I have worked in academic publishing and it is not uncommon at all for scholars to exchange critiques or request clarification on points when they are specifically addressing each others works. This is less true when you are dealing with footnotes or quick asides, but it was much more common when discussing reputed full-blown refutations of anothers central thesis.

Which argument is that? That you should have contacted Dr. Pearson about your work? How is that fallacious? That is an expression of my opinion. Do I also think its relevant to the weight others should give your work? Yes, I do. Which is why I thought it should be known.

I obviously have been debating the issues at hand because as you note this debate has taken up several pages of webspace. I included further criticisms above. So I did not use it as a means to avoid discussing the issues, but I was surprised that you never thought to even email a copy of your attack -- which is full of vitriotic statements and mischaracterizations -- to the one person who could respond to them most fully.

But I do realize that even in the soft-sciences, such as history, there is much to be said for scholarly opinion and peer-review. And certainly such resources are important for analyzing arguments and the value of evidence.

You did more than criticize him. You obviously attacked his competence. Moreover, an important part of your article was the refutation of his entire article. I am curious if your vitriolic language survived the peer-review process?

Also misleading. I do not ask everyone to ignore what you have to say. But I do think they should know that the piece was written with no requests for clarifications from the author that was alegedly "refuted." Also, I obviously did contact Pearson first before I raised the issue here. As you should know since I know he e-mailed you about the article. Who did you think brought it to his attention? He gave me feedback on a couple of points but seemed more interested in dispassionately discussing the issue with you.

You are misleading again. As I pointed out above, he offered argument and evidence that you simply ignored or distorted. And I know that Dr. Pearson already explained to you the space limitations and publishing challenges he faced with this article. And having gone through the publishing process myself I know that this is a fact that all writers face.

Your outrage is, as usual, selective.

You make bold accusations calling Dr. Pearson's competence into question. You ignore parts of his argument and distort others. You claim he offered no evidence when he offered much evidence or very relevant evidence. And I suspect you know that very few participants on this board have access to the CBQ and fewer still would bother to review Dr. Pearsons' piece. And indeed, that is exactly what happened here. Your fellow skeptics annointed your limited discussion with minimal references as an accepted "refutation" when they never even thought about reviewing the original article or checking the sources.

This is completely incidental. But I will be interested to see it when it gets published and see if you use the same tone and special pleading. Moreover, Dr. Pearson contacted you with specific responses, comments, and questions. He invited you to engage in a substantive discussion of the issue. Are you going to incorporate his response into your paper? Or at least follow up on the offer to engage in a dispassionate assessment of the evidence and arguments? That is something I would truly like to see.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

R. Carrier: "the Jews' unusual hostility to the very idea [of a census]"

What unusual hostility?

Here is what you say in your article:

You are, of course, referring to: 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, where God became upset with King David about a census that he conducted. Your argument also included one footnote that attempts to distinguish 2 Kings 12:4 and argue that it has been improperly translated to refer to a census.

However, your conclusion is unsupported by any direct or indirect evidence. There is no evidence that the Jews were "unusually hostile" to the conduct of a census in principle. Morever, there is evidence that census continued to be conducted among the Jews well after the reign of King David. Finally, Josephus' accounts of the uprising under Quirinius attribut the revolt not to anti-census sentiment, but to anti-Roman sentiment. As you know, the census inaugurated direct Roman rule over the Jews in Judaea.

There are examples of census being conducted before David was King:
[*]Exodus 30:1 ("When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them.");[*]Numbers 1:2 ("Take a census if the whole Israelite community by their clans and families, listing every man by name, one by one.");[*]Numbers 1:49 ("You must not count the tribe of Levi or include them in the census of the other Israelites.");[*]Numbers 4:2 ("Take a census of the Kohathite branch of the Levites by their clans and families.").

There is also clear evidence of census' being conducted among Jews after the reign of King David:
[*]2 Chronicles 2:17 ("Solomon took a census of all the aliens who were in Israel, after the census his father David had taken; and they were found to be 153,600").

You have attempted to distinguish this because it was a census of foreigners. That is a fair distinction but I'm not sure how far it gets you. Why would it be okay to count foreigners if the conduct of a census itself is somehow a violation of God's commandment?[*] 2 Kings 12:4 ("Joash said to the priests, 'Collect all the money that is brought as sacred offerings to the temple of the LORD--the money collected in the census, the money received from personal vows and the money brought voluntarily to the temple.'").

You argue that this is improperly translated. You offer yourself as the only authority for this proposition. And Apikorus adds this comment on that notion: "I would tend to agree that a census is implied by 2 Kings 12:5 (RSV 12:4). kesef nafshot erko (= "money of the accounting of souls") is very likely referring to a census."

Moreover, even if the 2 Kings 12:5 reference is flawed, or even questionable, you do not address the following references, which also refer to a census among the Jews after the time of King David:
[*]2 Chron. 25:5 ("Moreover, Amaziah assembled Judah and appointed them according to their fathers' households under commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds throughout Judah and Benjamin; and he took a census of those from twenty years old and upward and found them to be 300,000 choice men, able to go to war and handle spear and shield." (NASV)); [*]Ezra 2:1-70 ("The list in Ezra 2 (compare Neh. 7) puts the number (of returning Jews) at 50,000. This could be an expanded census list from the time of Nehemiah several generations later...." Bernard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, at 460);[*]Nehemiah 7:5 ("So my God put it into my heart to assemble the nobles, the officials and the common people for registration by families. I found the genealogical record of those who had been the first to return.").

Additionally, although you are right that the census under Quirnius caused a revolt, there is nothing in the accounts of this revolt to suggest that there was some sort of religious objection to the concept. Rather, Josephus' accounts of the revolt attributes it to specific anti-Roman sentiment, not general objections (religious or otherwise) to a census.

Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.1

Josephus, Jewish War, 2.433.

Antiquties 18.23.

Jewish Wars, 2.118.

Given that we have examples of Jewish' censuses occurring after King David and Josephus attributes the revolt against Quirinius' census to anti-Roman sentiment, what evidence is there that there was "unusual hostility" among the Jews to the very idea of a census? I agree that this is an important question because if there was a passionate loathing of all census, then Josephus' silence about the occurrence of a census or cesnsus's under Herod becomes more difficult to explain. However, because there is no evidence to support this proposition and evidence directly contrary to it, the answer to the question is No--there is no evidence that the Jews were generally opposed to the basic concept of a census.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Toto

Layman - did you notice that Carrier said he will not be participating in this thread? That he invited anyone to email him for further discussion?

Layman

If Carrier responds to me publically I reserve the right to reply publically.

Do you have anything of substantance to offer, Toto?

Toto

Do you have any comments on the relative strengths of the historical evidence for Alexander and Jesus?

Many pages ago, we all seemed to agree that if Luke did get this one detail right, it would not convert any non-believers, or be any evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus; and that if Luke happened to flub this detail, it would not destroy your faith. So why are you trying to torture the evidence to reach a conclusion that flies in the face of the most reasonable explanation of the texts? It's starting to sound like an obsession.

Layman

So that is a "No" from Toto. He has nothing substantive to offer on Carrier's comments or my reply.

Benjamin Franklin

If Luke does not mean a one broad, one-time, empire-wide census, then where is the rationale for getting Joseph and Mary to travel all the way from Galilee to Judea.

BF

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]</p>

Layman

Do you just make this stuff up?

This is either a blatant lie or embarrassing incompetence on your part.

Herod took military action against the Nabateans in around 10 BCE and was redressed strongly by Augustus because of it. This isn't disputed by anyone that I am aware of.

Peter Richardson, Herod King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans, at 279-80.

Professor Richardson is professor at the Centre for the Study of Religion and past principle of the University College at the University of Tornoto.

Also,

Michael Grant, Herod the Great, at 189-91.

Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Professor of Humanity at Edinburgh University.

So Witherington, a respected New Testament scholar, is confirmed exactly by two other secular historians.

What is your evidence that this is all a lie?

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Sauron

No. In fact, I gave my source for it - the govt of Jordan. Here it is, again:

<a href="http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_nabateans.html" target="_blank">http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_nabateans.html</a>

The Nabateans made a mistake by siding with the Parthians in their war with the Romans, and after the Parthians’ defeat, Petra had to pay tribute to Rome. When they fell behind in paying this tribute, they were invaded twice by the Roman vassal King Herod the Great. The second attack, in 31 BCE, saw him take control of a large swath of Nabatean territory, including the lucrative northern trading routes into Syria.

So as we can see, there were exactly two invasions of the Nabatean Empire by Herod. The 2nd, later invasion, was in 31 BCE.


It is neither, as we will see.


Why would anyone dispute a claim that no reputable person is making in the first place? Herod was involved in several skirmishes with bandits back and forth across the border. No problem there.

However, your original claim (and that of your source, Witherington) was for an actual war with the Nabateans. Here; let me refresh your memory:

Your first quotation, Richardson, does not back up your claim of a Nabatean war. It is a discussion of a military move against a single fort, to punish rebels and raiders. In fact, Richardson makes it clear that this fort isn't even in Nabatean territory: With Syllaeus in Rome Herod could not intervene in Nabatea directly

So any actions taken against the fort clearly weren't an invasion of Nabatea. Did that military action nevertheless get Herod into trouble with Caesar? Absolutely. But was it a war against Nabateans? No.

Your second quotation provides interesting background, but does nothing to support the claim of a war against Nabateans. Yes, I know it says "Second Arab war". However, the terms "Arab" and Nabatean" are not interchangeable. Philip C. Hammond (University of Utah) describes the frequent confusion in the Ancient History Bulletin:

<a href="http://www.trentu.ca/ahb/ahb5/ahb-5-1-2d.html" target="_blank">http://www.trentu.ca/ahb/ahb5/ahb-5-1-2d.html</a>

Other references to ‘Arabs’ / ‘Arabia’ are either clearly not references to Nabataeans / Nabataene, or are, at best, extremely dubious (e.g., Jos. AJ 8.8.2; 9.1.2, 10.3, 12.4.11, 13.1.4, 4.8, 14.3, 15.1; 145.5.5, 10.2, 11.3; 16.10.10-2; 17.3.2; BJ 1.4.7ff., 29.3ff., I Macc. 5.39 [cf. 5.24-25], 9.66, 11.16-17, 39-40, 12.31; II Macc. 12.10-11; Diod. 2.54.3; 19.69.1 and Geer’s n. 3 to this passage in LCL; Strabo 16.2.20, 3.1-3, 4.1-2, 4.18, 4.22, 4.25; Pliny, 12.25.69, 32.62).

[...]

Thus, the confusions introduced by the classical writers are explicable. Diodorus, Strabo, and Pliny, in particular, were depending for their writing upon indirect sources (i.e., the descriptions of others, or upon informants), not upon direct contact with the Nabataeans and were reflective of various periods of the history, not necessarily contemporary with their own. Therefore, an inaccurate picture of the culture is reflected in these very sources upon which much of Nabataean ‘history’ is now based.

In this symbiosis also lies the answer to another problem met in the reports of classical sources: namely the identity of ‘Arabs’ / ‘Arabians’. Since the classical authors were writing after the, Nabatu-Edomite melding was effected, and since the previous national identities of Moabites and Ammonites had been erased by conquest, the generic term, ‘Arab’ / ‘Arabians’, for peoples both East and West of the Jordan had come, except on certain specific occasions, into use. Therefore, when the generic term is used by the classical writers it may, or may not, be inclusive of Nabataeans, s.s., as such, nor need it be indicative of geographical location referred to (i.e., ‘Arabia’).


So Layman: you've done a wonderful job of showing that Herod marched against some Arabs. But you haven't shown that Herod went to(1)war with (2) Nabateans. Both (1) and (2) need to be satisfied. Neither of your sources supports you, or Witherington, in this.

Finally, you left out one key detail about the whole Herod/Augustus falling out over this military action. Herod was restored to favor the following year:

<a href="http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/InTest/Hist7.htm" target="_blank">http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/InTest/Hist7.htm</a>
Augustus takes offense that Herod took military action without permission outside of the borders of his kingdom. The delegation sent by Herod to Rome cannot assuage Augustus's wrath. A second delegation, however, led by Nicolas of Damascus is successful in restoring Herod to a position of favor, by proving that Syllaeus lied about what Herod did.

Even if we accept that the military action in 10 BCE was a war, the effects on Herod's relationship with Augustus didn't last. Witherington tried to rescue the Lucan census, by hypothesizing that it was a punitive measure from Rome against Herod (for his military action). But with the realization that Herod's downfall from grace was only a fleeting event, Witherington's lame attempt is now fully refuted.

Even if we were talking about Herod falling from grace totally and never recovering in 10 BCE, that still doesn't solve your problem of no evidence for any census.

1. You're overstating the delays in travel. If Rome had wanted Herod to conduct a census because of the military action against the Arabs, then it would only be a matter of a few weeks or a month to carry that message to Herod from Rome. And considering how small Judea was, as a region, relying on "delays of travel" is pretty feeble of you.

2. As for the preparatory time for such a census - that doesn't help your argument. It just expands the window of time/opportunity for someone to notice the event, and describe it in writing.

3. And of course, given the Judean mind-set and the political situation, any such census would have been accompanied by revolt, protest, etc. - as happened later, when a census was conducted in Judea. Unless you're now going to postulate a mysterious census that nobody recorded anywhere, and nobody objected to?

4. And of course, your are interchanging the concept of a tax and a census, when they really are not the same thing at all - for reasons that Carrier outlines in his essay.

Actually, no.

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Layman

No, there was another one. I will choose to rely on historians like Grant and Richardson rather than a selectively parsed Jordanian government website excerpt.

Richardson titled the whole section on Herod's military action the "THE NABATEAN WAR (12-9 BCE)" and Grant entitled it "THE SECOND ARAB WAR".

How can my quotation of Richardson fail to back up my claim of a war with Nabatea when Richardson entitles the entire section: "THE NABATEAN WAR (12-9 BCE)."

Perhaps you can write Professor Richardson and inform him that he doesn't know what he is talking about and this does not fit your definition of a "war".

Perhaps you can share with us your definition of war? Or invasion? Herod sent troops across the border into Nabatea, attacked a city there, and when a Nabatean army under the command of a relative of Syllaeus (procurator of Obodas III, King of the Nabataeans) tried to intervene, Herod defeated them and killed Syllaeus's relative.

We have armed conflict. A border crossing. The attacking of a city in another's territory. A counterattack lead by a relative of Nabatean's leader, and their defeat and the death of a that important relative.

In other words, we have an invasion and a war. Not one as big as past wars, but what else are you going to call it?

No, you are just desparately scrambling here by somehow admitting that there was a "military action" against the Nabateans, but somehow no "war
with the Nabateans.

I did not say they were interchangeable. But Nabateans are Arabs. And Grant is clearly talking about a military action (which is somehow not a war?) against them.

But since you like internet sources:

<a href="http://www.nabataea.net/mhistory.html" target="_blank">http://www.nabataea.net/mhistory.html</a>

And this from a source I know you read because you quoted part of it:

<a href="http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/InTest/Hist7.htm" target="_blank">http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/InTest/Hist7.htm</a>


Actually, my two extra cites to historian make it clear that there was a War and that it was with the Nabateans. Richardson even titles it THE NABATEAN WAR (12-9 BCE) and Grant also describes it as a war: THE SECOND ARAB WAR. And Grant is clearly describing Herod's actions in invading Nabatea and killing a relative of one of the Nabatean's leaders. I also provided yet another internet source (your favorite) clearly descrinb these events as a "war" again the "Nabateans" and an "invasion" of Navatean territory.

I and Witherington were absolutely right that Herod fell from grace as a result of his war with the Nabateans You have used tortured definitions of "war" and "Arab" and selectively parsed your own sources to avoid this very obvious fact. And you did so even though you knew that the even under your own distorted version of events, that Herod fell from grace because of a military action outside his kingdom. I am other historians call it a war. You insist it was not. I and other historians recognize that it was a war with the Nabateans. You seem to claim that it was only against nonNabatean Arabs. You were once again embarassingly wrong about all of this, but even if you had been right you were admitting Herod fell from grace.

Now you claim it was a "fleeting event." You do this with no concept of the time involved. August refused to hear any envoys from Herod for at least two years--a time period which would fits in very well with the ordering of the census mentioned in Luke. It was not until sometime in 7 BCE that Augustus even accepted an envoy from Herod. And you are right. Some favor was restored. But at least two years later and not to the status he once held.

Michael Grant, Herod the Great, at 194.

So Witherington, a respected New Testament scholar, is confirmed exactly by two other secular historians.